← Doug Casey's Take
Doug Casey's Take
Charlie Kirk, Mercantilism, and More
00:48:53
Find us at In this episode, Doug discusses the shocking news of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the suspect's arrest, and the potential implications for U.S. politics. Doug also dives into an in-depth analysis of Trump's economic policies, comparing...
Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:02]
A
All right. Good morning, Doug. Have to start off with the big news that everybody's commenting on. It's my Twitter feed is filled with it and that's the news about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. What are your thoughts?
- [00:15]
B
Well, I don't have a Twitter feed, but and I'll be quite candid with you, I was unaware of Charlie Kirk other than just a name, didn't know anything about him or what he was doing previously. He's not within my silo or my bubble. But since he was assassinated, and I guess that's the right word because when a public figure is killed, it's an assassination. That's indistinct line of where murder becomes an assassination. But this was assassination. And I find from what I know have found out about him that he was actually a very impressive person. He incidentally, since we're talking about the preparation a lot. He didn't go to college by intent, so he was ahead of his times from that point of view. And he was very well educated and self educated, obviously an autodidact and very well disciplined because I'm told that he usually ran 10 miles a day to stay in shape, which is. That's a formidable amount. So. And from what I've heard him say and speak, because I've caught up on this sound guy, conservative, not a libertarian necessarily, libertarian leaning conservative, I think, but rather religiously oriented. But. So I'm sorry that he was taken out.
- [02:14]
A
Yeah, yeah. I mean, think about it. Pretty accomplished at 31 years old. He built this organization, Turning Point USA, I think it's called, which had, let's see, look at the numbers. 250,000 student members, 450 staff members that work to recruit and organize those students across the country, which, you know, they helped with voter registration, advocacy, organizing conservative discussions on campus, et cetera. And you know, they raised over $80 million last year, this organization did.
- [02:51]
B
It's a big deal. It was clearly a force of nature.
- [02:55]
A
Yeah, he really was.
- [02:57]
B
So we really don't know or do we know who. Who killed him and why does that come out, really?
- [03:06]
A
There are claims that there was this guy of the guy, I don't recall his name, but this kid, he's been arrested. Apparently his father recognized from the photos that they had that were whatever was distributed from security camps, recognized him and called the police and held him there until the police arrived. And apparently they say that he confessed to his father, at least that he did do it. But there are a lot of weird inconsistencies like all these things like they say that there's a video of him jumping off the building where the shot was fired from. And he clearly doesn't have a rifle in his hand and it's. And yet in a wooded area not too far away from there. Apparently. The, the authorities claim he deposited the rifle. Now the explanation for why you don't see him with the rifle is he's, they say that he disassembled it like separating the barrel and it's a Mauser and, and separate. It's not an easy breakdown process. But they claim that he quickly broke it down, basically tucked it in his backpack and the barrel down his pant leg and then apparently reassembled it and before he dropped it in the woods where they found it. So there's a lot of things that don't really add up, you know, to the official story. Again, I don't know what the real answers are, but this is, that fact is bothersome to me. You know, that he doesn't have a rifle when he jumps off and it was found in the woods fully assembled. Who knows. But, but yeah, apparently someone has been arrested for it at this point and.
- [04:45]
B
They say it was a 200 yard shot and the purported weapon is a 30 out 6. So that's reasonable. But a small target at 200 yards but implies a certain degree of competency. I don't know if he was a practiced marksman or not.
- [05:07]
A
Yeah, it must have been probably some experience. I mean, I don't know, I don't know how skilled he had to be. I mean we, you know, in the army we had to hit 300 meters with iron sights. So I don't know, I had a scope, you know, so, you know, unless.
- [05:23]
B
The wind's blowing or. There. A scope makes things so much easier than.
- [05:27]
A
Yeah.
- [05:28]
B
Sights.
- [05:29]
A
It does, but you know, I mean, but you can do it with iron sights. So I mean if he's got a scope and it's only at 200 yards, that's, and he's got some experience at all. You know, he could spend. If he, if he, if he shot 500 rounds through that thing, I think he'd probably be competent enough to pull it off, no problem. You know. And then there's a thought that, that Charlie was wearing a, you know, a bulletproof vest and it actually hit the vest and went up. That's one of the things that I've heard about it. But.
- [06:04]
B
Well, we're still at the conjecture stage and we'll see how much truth comes out about this. But more important perhaps is that Maybe this is a major turning point, this assassination. Maybe it'll catalyze people into different groups even more than they have been. Because I've been saying for years, actually think at least 10 years, that the US is heading into something that is going to resemble a civil war. And you tie in Charlie Kirk's assassination with that murder which took place two weeks ago in Charlotte on that light rail where that black criminal killed the Ukrainian girl. And that barely just that was suppressed and is just now coming out. So you put those two things together and it's a witch's brew. I mean, George Floyd, who was a completely worthless scumbag criminal, became a national hero of the left. It would seem that Charlie Kirk combined with the Ukrainian girl, her name was Irynia, I think could become symbolic of, of the right. I don't know. This is. And so many lefties. And I've seen some of these posts were, you know, joyous about Charlie Kirk.
- [07:39]
A
You know, and the thing about Charlie is he's like, like he's not right winger. Like he's, he's like a basic conservative, conservative values, that kind of guy. So it's, it's like the mainstream guy, you know, that they went after. They didn't have to, they didn't go after somebody that was like a, it wasn't like a Nick Fuentes, you know, guys like, you know, has like really controversial ideas. It's a guy who has very rational ideas that, you know, most people, except for the left, they just seem perfectly reasonable. So, yeah, I think it could be a weird catalyzing point has had a bigger effect on, and especially for young people because, you know, I, both of my kids, so, you know, 18 and 20 came into my office and told me about it within minutes of it happening. I mean, maybe three minutes after it happened. Telling me that it happened and showing me the video of it long before he was declared dead or any of that. And it was pretty obvious from the wound he was dead. I mean, that's unsurvivable if you see it. I mean, he was probably unconscious within 20 seconds and could have been dead within a minute. I mean, it was just so bad. But, but they were way more in tune with it than, than I was for sure. And like you said, you. He wasn't even on your radar really. But, but for young people, I think it's quite substantial and I think that's. It brings them into the fold of this, you know, this Civil War debate, I guess in a way that they probably never been before on the Conservative side.
- [09:36]
B
Yeah. So all we can do at this point is see how the, the masses, we're talking hundreds of millions of people in the US, 300, 300,000,000 people, how they reorient themselves as the kaleidoscope has turned a bit due to these two events. I mean, certainly, certainly when George Floyd, you know, the cop that was involved in his death didn't kill him. I mean, the cop was very stupid holding, holding him down the way he did. But Floyd apparently died because he was a junkie and he, he, he took, he, he swallowed all the drugs so he wouldn't get busted for the drugs when he was picked up for passing phony 20s. So, you know, that would, the whole thing was shameful and stupid from start to finish. But this is very different if we're talking about something that characterizes traditional conservative American values versus left progressive values. The big difference. So I'm really interested in seeing how this all pans out and what Trump does too, because apparently Kirk was very close with Trump.
- [10:56]
A
Yes. Because he was a very active political contributor. You know, not financially, but in terms of getting the votes out. He was a, he was a, he was a major factor. I mean, his, his organization really helped. And it does seem to me they've been trying for a long time to get the right to respond, you know, in some sort of, to cross the line in some way. You know, they concocted the January six thing to as, as to make it as if they did then. And certainly. And you know, you recall, you know, Dark Biden talking about the problems with the right wing extremists being the number one threat to the homeland and all that stuff.
- [11:38]
B
Yeah.
- [11:38]
A
And just so you know, they've been. This could give them sadly the, the catalyst to cause a reaction from the right.
- [11:50]
B
Yeah. It's an evolving situation. So we'll have to, against my better judgment, keep an eye on late breaking news, as they call it.
- [12:02]
A
Yeah, well, yeah, so there's that. So then the other thing I want to spend a little bit of time talking about is, you know, as we, we normally just comment on the news and the different things that Trump is doing and the things that we think that are a mistake and we get accused of being have Trump derangement syndrome and all this other nonsense, but wanted to kind of put what Trump is doing in context because I don't think it's like some of it seems insane and I think some of it, I think, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not arguing that it is taking the right positions. But it does seem like there's a method to the madness. And it was something that we talked about, at least with our subscribers on crisis investing at the very beginning of the year. And that is that his turn toward something called mercantilism. You know, it seemed obvious to me reading the papers of the people that were in his administration and listening to what they had to say, that they were planning to adopt an approach that was toward governance and trade and all of that, similar to China's where there's a lot of state involvement in different things. This is something that's been not done since the days of FDR and. Right. So, but I think we can, we can look at what a whole bunch of his actions and they, they all fit this context of a mercantilist approach. And I don't know, would you like me to go through some of them?
- [13:38]
B
Yeah, because you showed me the list you put together and I think it's an excellent list. Of course, the thing with mercantilism, it's a concept that some people, but not all heard about in their economics classes or whatever, history classes. But I think it's unclear to most people, and I would call it economic fascism, which it actually is, it's just a different word. And of course, fascism is another word which is misinterpreted and misused and conflated with different things. So as with most economic things, people are generally confused. But go ahead on this. You're, I think you're right.
- [14:23]
A
So basically, mercantilism prioritizes the, quote, national economy over free markets, protecting domestic producers, allegedly restricting imports, boosting exports, and treating trade as a zero sum game where it's a, it's not a win win where we get to, you know, where there's, you know, bananas from Guatemala that we can't produce in the US and we get them from them and they get some benefit from us instead. It's a zero sum. Someone must lose in that transaction. And we want to, and we want to be on the winning side of all of these things. So, for example, his things with these companies where the intel, the stake in intel that they took, you know, originally this was part of the CHIPS Act, I believe that was passed by Biden where they were getting money for free. And he says, no, no, for that money that you're going to continue to get, we want to stake in the company for it. And they got it. Not only did they get it, but they got it 17% below market and they got warrants on it too. So you know, for Trump, ego argues that's a good deal, that's a win. And on the other side are parties who lose. And in this case it was the shareholders who were deluded in that. In that win lose scenario, the deal with Nvidia and AMD where you know, if they're exporting to China then they have to pay a 15% royalty to the federal government to do that. You know, going beyond Congress, it's just a deal he worked out with them, strong armed them into with US Steel. You know, it's clear that Nippon Steel wanted to buy it. In order to do it, the government acquired something they call a golden share plus veto power and board representation which basically puts the US government in the driver's seat of US Steel. So that's one area where we see this. We could also add the purchase of MP materials in there I think is another one or a stake in it. But there's a much, much more active role in the private economy that they're taking and with this win lose frame of mind. So that's number one. Number two is touting all this new foreign direct investment that's being made by the different countries around the world. We met with Ursa van der Leyen. Part of that trade deal supposedly was that was it $700 billion that European companies were going to, they were committing, were going to invest in the US and then when he went to the Gulf states, he comes back with $600 billion commitments of them to invest directly into the U.S. even with Japan, there was Japan which was broke. But they're going to be putting hundreds of billions of dollars of direct investment into the US too.
- [17:28]
B
In the old days of the US corporations used to invest voluntarily into foreign countries. Now foreigners have to have their arms twisted to put money into the U.S. it's funny nobody thinks of that, the shoes on the other foot. But anyway, yeah, yeah we should.
- [17:48]
A
I mean obviously the ideal way is that we have an environment where it makes it in their best interest to invest here. They're doing it because it's getting, it's a win win. But in the mercantile's view it's a win lose scenario. That's the way it's looked at. It's a zero sum game. So there's definitely, that's, that's a really big deal. He's done the same thing with all these companies. You had all these tech executive surrounding him at dinner that night and he's going around how much are you investing? How much are you investing? How much are you investing in the US and you know, they're, you know, Zuckerberg saying $600 billion, where the hell is that money coming from? I mean that the company is only worth like that's like a third of the value of the company. Like where are they coming up with 600?
- [18:32]
B
Yeah. And Trump commenting one time to Tim Cook who runs Apple, says, I've done a lot of nice things for Tim. I expect him to, you know, wait a minute, it's not his position as the president to do a lot of nice things for the head of a major corporation and expect something in return. This is entirely the wrong way to look at it. It's not none of his business.
- [18:57]
A
Yeah, and this is what is what people like. So Americans can look at this part. Some of this being good is like, hey, he's putting strong army in them to making jobs in the US and that's good. But what they don't understand is that there are, is that Trump is picking winners and losers. And it's not just among the United States winning over, you know, Japan in the trade deal. It's a particular company in the U.S. versus another particular company in the U.S. i mean it's all. He's picking who the winners are, you know, who will benefit from the choices made by the state. So the next one is, you know, I said, and again I could find an argument for this, that IP capture and revenue, university revenue control. So the Commerce Department is floating the, this new act to reclaim royalties from university patents. So essentially all the R and D that is done at these universities because they do receive some funding from the state, which of course the state should not be involved in this at all anyway. But because they do, they often own the universities, these patents. Well, the US wants a piece of that patent, all that IP that comes out of these universities.
- [20:16]
B
Yeah. And it's a double edged problem. Number one, what is the government doing giving money to universities? I mean that's wrong in lots of different ways. And then the universities have to give something back to the state, which means the state's going to control more stuff. So it's doubly bad.
- [20:42]
A
So then you've got the sovereign wealth fund which we talked about before. You said, if it was first brought up, I think you laughed about it and you said how could we have a sovereign wealth fund? We don't have any, we only have debt. Right, but you know that apparently, I mean there are ways where they, they can acquire it. One by strong arming companies into giving up equity like they did with intel and warrants. I mean, Howard Lutnick specifically said that anytime that, you know, they should look at, anytime that they award a contract to a company, that they should get warrants in that company. You know, so with this approach, with this mercantile approach, you certainly could fill the sovereign wealth fund with real assets of companies over time.
- [21:32]
B
Yeah, well, they're assets controlled by the state. And I'm afraid that the average American is going to be hooting and panting like a chimpanzee because the average American thinks that he's got a stake in what's going on with the sovereign wealth fund. Yeah, I guess theoretically, in the same way that Soviet citizens had a stake in the government there. It's the same thing. They don't realize it though.
- [21:58]
A
Exactly. Yeah. It's not like it's paying dividends to the. To the citizens.
- [22:04]
B
No, no. It's not another economic drain because everything the state talks, touches, is going to turn to crap and become a. A black hole for money, Not a cornucopia generating money.
- [22:20]
A
Right. So then there's the, you know, the stable coins and this dollar infrastructure that's being created around the genius act. You know, essentially it is an effort to make sure that the US Dollar is dominant by essentially boosting treasury demand and, you know, providing a lot of surveillance tools within the currency that allow. Allows the state to again decide winners and losers.
- [22:56]
B
Yeah, it's the further financialization of the u. S. Economy. In addition, they see these coins as a place to absorb treasury securities, among other things. And of course, if they're all on computer and we know who owns them, there's less financial privacy. I think that's going to be one of the results of it all, basically.
- [23:23]
A
Yep. And even the strategic bitcoin reserve, turns out it's just basically bitcoins that are seized by the state. A lot of people originally thinking that they were going to print the treasury essentially was going to go out and buy bitcoin. But what makes up the strategic bitcoin reserve so far are all bitcoins that have been seized by the state in asset forfeiture arrangements.
- [23:48]
B
Like, for instance, the bitcoins that were seized from Ross Ulbricht, who was blameless. Anyway, none of this is good news. And it's all economic fascism, because the word mercatilism really is another word for fascism, because fascism, which is a word that was coined by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 20s, it's basically the merger of corporations with the state where one washes the hand of the other and they work Together in a revolving door. And that's exactly what we have. The US like just about every country in the world is in a fascist country. Nothing to do with Jack boots and midnight knocks on the door. That's another aspect of any authoritarian system. Fascism, communism, socialism, all of these things. But mercantilism is economic fascism.
- [24:53]
A
Yep. And of course there's the tariffs in general. And to me the tariffs are mostly the tool for bludgeoning the opposition into going your way into agreeing to the terms so that you are the winner in a deal. You know, and I think, and I purposely, I think that it's done purposely at this point that there's so much confusion around tariffs. It makes it more effective than even the tariffs themselves because them being so confusing to people, they cannot make any kind of rational decision. And so it's like it's worse than saying Your tariff is 300% and people have to like rework things to survive around that. It's that it's this moving mystery constantly and you just want some order to come out of that chaos. And so you're more willing to agree to different terms because. So that the whole thing doesn't seize up. So.
- [25:57]
B
In addition to directing more money towards the state and out of consumers pockets, it's creating chaos, which is very bad in an economy.
- [26:08]
A
Yeah, very bad, Very bad. And I think that chaos though is designed to just get people to the same terms, deal terms like what he's managed to work out with the Gulf states where their foreign direct investment is huge amounts coming in, or with Japan again where they're basically, you know, there's a big payoff coming our way or coming in the way of, of some select winners in the United States who will benefit from that foreign direct investment. So the more chaos the better, I think, to get that done.
- [26:42]
B
Yeah, it's certainly going to help the politically favored people to benefit from these things and become wealthier at the cost to the rest of the society. So the rich become richer and the poor become relatively poorer, especially the middle class.
- [27:03]
A
Yeah, you know, that was one of like Trump likes to talk about McKinley and you know, that there was all tariffs and he. And it was great and everything worked better. Of course government was super small, didn't need much money to fund it at the time. But apparently at that time there were a lot of the complaints from citizens about that, that it was basically all this political favoritism. It's like who had the right to import this one thing, you know. And so there was so much corruption sort of built into the system, around the system of tariffs that, you know, there were clear winners and losers picked among that. So, you know, it's not like everybody was super happy with, with that system. You know, that system isn't, it wasn't what it was made out to be.
- [27:50]
B
Yeah. And listen, I gotta say about Trump, just to head off people who say that we have Trump derangement syndrome. Not true. Personally, I'm all for the fact that Trump has broken the back or severely damaged the WOKE movement. So this is wonderful. I mean, there are a lot of things that I like about Trump, including his sense of humor and his style. I think it's most amusing. But his economic policies are not one of them. And that's all we're talking about, really.
- [28:27]
A
Yeah.
- [28:27]
B
His foreign policy too, we could talk about into that, but I don't know if we have time to go into that, plus some questions. We can save that for later.
- [28:37]
A
Yeah, we should.
- [28:38]
B
Yeah. Because this, this thing with Qatar and Israel, that'll still be there when we come back next. So.
- [28:45]
A
Yeah, one thing I'll say, I'll say this as a, like a hypothetical in defense of Trump and that I'm not saying it is just that we were on the edge of a cliff economically before he was elected. No doubt about it. I mean, there's. We too much debt in a debt spiral. I mean, we're in a doom loop already. And while these radical changes that he's taking on could be an attempt to actually deal with the problem that no one's ever attempted to deal with before, whether or not they're the right ones, you know, we definitely have opinions that a lot of them are the wrong ones or not. I think is you could, you can kind of. I do appreciate the idea that somebody is trying to do something about us. We're going to fall off a cliff one way or another, it was going to happen. And you know, whether it be this year or 10 years from now, I mean, it's just inevitable based away the way things were going. And so I think this approach is, I think that the most important thing to understand about this approach to me is the impact it actually will have on the typical person's life. And that number one thing that will come from this is that the standard, your standard of living will decrease. If nothing else, simply because the dollar must be devalued in order for this plan to work. It's a key cornerstone of the whole thing. And you know, since the beginning of the year in relation to other currencies, it's down 11%. If you compare it to gold, it's down way more than 11%. And gold is the truth teller, I think, about what's really going on and, and that people should, you can like a lot of these things. You can think these things that he's doing are good. You can totally buy into it. But you have to understand that they do have direct consequences for you. And those are certainly, if nothing else, the dollar is the key and everyone needs the dollar.
- [31:01]
B
And you're right. I mean, at least Trump tried to or is trying to do something to slow down the descent of the U.S. i'm afraid many of the things he's doing are the wrong thing, but at least it's not an acceleration of the trend that would have been established under Kamala or for that matter under Biden. So he's trying to do something. I'm afraid he's just making mistakes.
- [31:31]
A
Yep. And it's a radical, his approach is radical, you know, by, by historical standards. But I just, I would just say this is Trump. Is, is FDR like in his approach?
- [31:44]
B
Yeah, very much.
- [31:47]
A
Rules out the window. We're going to remake everything, all the, the standard deal that Americans. One thing that I, I remember saying in a podcast in February, beginning of February about this is that one outcome would be that Americans relationship with their government would be fundamentally different than it was before. Just like in FDR's time.
- [32:12]
B
Yeah.
- [32:13]
A
So no way around it.
- [32:16]
B
Yeah. And that's actually not good because what made America exceptional was its unique constitution and the fact that the constitution kept the government under control. But throw that out the window and the US Isn't exceptional anymore. So these radical changes are all negative.
- [32:39]
A
Okay, so we just have a few questions for you here today, Doug from Members of the File. Basically, if you subscribe to Crisis Investing, you have the opportunity to ask questions that I, that I ask questions. Post questions there. I asked them to Doug during our podcast. This one is, you know, what's Doug's take on purchasing an existing small business or opening a new one? What sectors would he avoid and which to C4C upside in for some context. I'm a 36 year old realtor living in British Columbia. I've saved a bit of money and looking to deploy in something other than stocks and property.
- [33:16]
B
Does he say where he lives in bc?
- [33:19]
A
It's Okanagan.
- [33:24]
B
Okanagan. I used to live in bc. I think that among other things that's a fruit and wine growing area of bc. Well, look, question is what business should he get in to diversify. Well, I don't know, because if you're going to stay there in British Columbia, I mean, I don't have boots on the ground to figure out what's really going on in B.C. other than what I can pick up in the media. One thing that I do know is that the wine business is experiencing hard times and all over the world they're actually ripping out vineyards which are put in at great expense because there's just no money in wine these days. Maybe that's an opportunity, that's a crisis. You're not in it, people are getting out of it. Maybe things will change. I mean, it turns out that young people for some reason are drinking much less alcohol these days and drinking mocktails instead of cocktails, this type of thing.
- [34:34]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [34:36]
B
So I don't know I. What business to be in. I'd have to think about it because I'm not thinking about getting into a new and different business, quite frankly. So perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask, but I would look at where there's a crisis and there's a crisis in the wine business and that part of B.C. is part of the B.C. wine business, which.
- [35:06]
A
So, you know, the one thing I would say is that there's a lot of small businesses, like basic, you know, traditional type businesses, like, you know, H vac business or you know, like a nuts and bolts kind of business that could relate to real estate would be something you might be somewhat familiar with, you know, that were started by boomers and they're getting, you know, they're at retirement age and they are looking, always looking for, they're looking for a way to exit the business. A lot of times their kids don't want it and you know, what they end up doing is just shutting it down when they decide they're going to stop working instead of continuing. And I think that's a big trend where this is happening. I mean, same thing is true in farms where farmers want to retire and then there's just no one to pass it along to. And some of these things are hard to sell for a reasonable price. So if you look at small traditional businesses that generate great cash flows, have good reputation, some you could pick up for five times earnings, maybe or less. And you probably do owner financing on it. So I would look at those traditional businesses.
- [36:23]
B
Yeah, there's lots of way to structure the business that maybe the seller would like to stay in as a consultant part time, as you learn the ropes. I mean, is. Yeah, so there's opportunities of that Nature too.
- [36:38]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'd look there.
- [36:41]
B
I look there. You're quite correct. Good, Good point, Matt. I like that idea.
- [36:45]
A
Yeah. Just these traditional things that people have to have. But you know, there's. Just because of demographics, there's. The business builders are exiting, you know, they want to exit. So. Next question. Given the results of the Buenos Aires elections in Argentina this past weekend, their stock market has taken a beating and trending down since May. Has Doug's outlook for economic growth there changed?
- [37:16]
B
Well, the victory of Milei two years ago, I want to believe, and I still believe it was a world historic importance, because here people forget. Milei openly identified as an anarcho capitalist who basically wants to rid the country of the government as an institution. And it seems like he's done the best he could, firing government employees and getting rid of the regulations that he can by executive order and so forth in Argentina and made tremendous improvements. But once again, I mean, I don't want to quibble, but you know, he has reneged on his promise to abolish the Central bank of Argentina, which would have, I think, brought inflation down to zero, not just reduced it radically, which he did. And I think he should have defaulted on all the Argentine government debt to the people that have been complicit in propping up fascist regimes in Argentina before and ridding the next generation of young Argentines of all the debt that's going to have to be paid off. And he's borrowing more from the IMF and the World bank and so forth. I think he's making some mistakes and I'd like to find out why he's doing these things. Okay. That said, the fact that he lost in Buenos Aires province, It's what, like 40% of the people in Argentina live in Biei Province. And it's the center of leftism in Argentina, always has been, maybe always will be. The national elections coming up in a couple of months will determine whether he gains control of the Congress, in which case he can pass laws as opposed to just do things by executive order. So I've got my fingers crossed with Argentina. I mean, will stupidity triumph over intelligence and freedom over authoritarianism? I don't know. It depends on how corrupt the Argentine people have really become. What do you think, Matt?
- [39:47]
A
Well, I just know that that's the center of leftism. So, you know, I didn't. I didn't take much from it, but one. One reading of it, I, or one person reporting on it said that it was worse than expected, so. Which basically did not necessarily Bode well for the coming elections. So. But I, I think we'll just have to see. I think the good thing is that it did not coincide with those other elections, the more important ones that are coming up. And so, you know, Malay has a chance to maybe adjust or make some adjustments if they can be made, you know, to make sure that he does get that more control in Congress and can pass some laws. But I mean, we'll really know within a couple months whether Malay's efforts are going to be a failure or not. Honestly, I think we'll know for sure.
- [40:38]
B
Yeah. Notwithstanding all the mistakes that I think he's made, he's tremendous, bottom line and. Well, we'll just have to see. It's the same problem we have here in the us Half the country are corrupt and collectivist and like to have an authoritarian government giving him stuff for nothing, and the other half are for freedom and individuality. Same problem in Argentina as it is in the us But I think the US is on the cusp of a civil war. I don't think Argentina is, but anything can happen anywhere.
- [41:23]
A
Okay, last question I had for you is he says if Doug had ambition to open up his own Rick's Cafe American, what countries would he target? You might have to give some backstory on that a little bit.
- [41:39]
B
Yeah. Well, after the Soviet Union fell and all of the little satrapy countries that it was controlling, including the new Soviet republics that became free countries like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia changed and it was a free for all throughout the ex communist world. And it occurred to me that foreign businessmen would want to flood into those countries looking for opportunities to buy assets, to build assets and so forth. And having been to many of these capital cities of these, of these backwater countries like the ones I named and others, that the one thing you couldn't get in those countries, there's no place to go to hang out and get a good drink or a good meal. I mean, they just didn't really exist. So if you opened up a Rick's Cafe American where the manager was business oriented.
- [43:00]
A
This is sort of based upon the Rick's Cafe of Casablanca.
- [43:03]
B
That's right, exactly. You would set up a bar, restaurant like that. It would cost nothing to rent, use period type furniture. You don't have to spend millions redecorating and set up a bar with great drinks and have a menu with a few international specialties like hamburgers done really well and a few local specialties done really well because you don't make money on the food. You make money on the drinks. So how do you get people to drink? Well, you put word out to the highways and the byways to. To the women of the country. Rich foreign businessmen gather here, show up, you might get lucky. And of course, knowing that the rich foreign businessman would pile up. Exactly. So it would be a successful business venture, but better yet, it could become an informal stock exchange where you could wind up getting a percentage of all the deals that go on in wrecks by putting people together because, you know, everybody that's coming in there anyway. Great idea. I never, I never did that. Other things in life got in the way, but it's still possible today. But not as possible as it was then because these countries have all kind of straightened out and there's lots of great bars and restaurants and it's free. And, you know, that was a temporary opportunity. I mean, the opportunity is always there. But it was a big opportunity, big easy opportunity back then to open up a Rex Cafe. And actually, when I was in New Zealand, there was an ex soldier that came to visit me with a couple of his buddies and he wanted to do that. He wanted. He knew that was on my mind. And he. I said, well, the place to go would be to Rangoon, Burma. That's the place you want to go. I just picked that. And he did. He went up there and he tried to do it. But the problem he had in Rangoon was he couldn't get what the Russians called a krisha, a roof. You need a general to keep the other predators to ward them off. And of course you got to give the general 10% or whatever, basically. But it's a good deal because then you're safe to do business. And he couldn't establish a relationship with a top political criminal. And you need that in these places, otherwise they'll shake you down and they'll ruin your business better up with them.
- [45:57]
A
So anyway, where would that place be today, though, if you're going to do it? Is there a place today that's still. There's an opportunity for that?
- [46:06]
B
Yeah. Where is a place that's got opportunity where foreign businessmen are not currently, and therefore they're not. You know, I think cyclically Rangoon, Burma is probably the place again, frankly, because it looked like they were going to open up and with Ausang Suki and all this type of. That's all gone by the boards and it's back to being a military dictatorship again. So I think that might be a good place. But where else? Where else?
- [46:41]
A
Must be somewhere in Africa.
- [46:44]
B
Yeah, but who's going to go to Africa. It's a little bit, I'm not sure it's worth looking at because if you have a little bit of capital and it's not going to take a lot of capital because costs are low and the formula is simple.
- [47:07]
A
Watch Casablanca a couple times and you'll get the idea.
- [47:10]
B
Yeah, exactly. Right. And Casablanca really is one of the best movies ever made. Definitely on any top, top ten list. Maybe it's number one. Who knows?
- [47:22]
A
Yeah, no, Princess Bride is number one in my, my, my book. Yeah. Princess Bride. Yeah. But Casablanca is up there for sure.
- [47:28]
B
It is, it is up there. Anyway, it's, it's, it's a good idea. It's good to, you know, real life follows fiction as often as the reverse, so.
- [47:40]
A
Yeah, yeah, no, it'd be cool. Yeah. I remember you telling me about this idea way back when. I don't know, maybe 12 or 12 years ago or something like that. It's the first time I heard you talk about it. Sounded like, sounded very interesting then, but, but yeah, right after the Soviet Union fell, it seems like it would have been a no brainer. I mean, so many opportunities, so many places and, and Western businessmen did flood in to all of these places.
- [48:07]
B
Yeah. So it's just a question, I think, of traveling around and looking for a similar anomaly right now. And where would that be? Well, I'm not sure, but I'm sure it still exists.
- [48:28]
A
Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, that's all the questions we got for today, Doug, so we can leave it there and I hope you have a great weekend. We'll be back next week with more.
- [48:39]
B
Well, here on the shores of the Chesapeake, it's a beautiful fall day.
- [48:45]
A
We'll get out there and enjoy it.
- [48:48]
B
Okay. You do?
- [48:49]
A
All right, Take care, Doug. Bye.
- [48:50]
B
Bye.